Max was back last night and left me with another poser.
Seriously, I recognize that Behr isn't for everyone but he did attempt to delve deeper into the depths of all that golf and golf architecture may be far more than anyone I'm aware of.
This thread is also intended to just make us think a bit more--and maybe it should follow the same basic comparison as did the recent thread "A comparison of architectural principles--Fazio & Behr" particularly how Tom Fazio thinks about golf and golf architecture (in the context of some of the things he's actually said) compared to how Behr thought about it and spoke about it.
(By the way, there's a very good post on that other thread by Michael Moore about how Fazio thinks about architecture, in Michael's opinion, and even Michael's mention of anthropomorphizing things such as golf features or golf architecture. That's another fascinating issue to look into more at some point. I suggest you all read Michael's post).
But, again, Behr looked deep into the beginnings of golf, even before the onset of architecture, particularly before the onset of architecture, probably just to see what influence that raw, rudimentary, unbounded "sport" had on those that played it then.
As golf in that early era did become a dedicated "culture" to some in Scotland at that time there may be much to find in it that was and is interesting, possibly even fundamental and possibly to the game we play today. Logically, it’s not to imply that type of raw course be brought back exactly or certainly that the unbounded, unrestrained game they played then be brought back, but perhaps just to try to understand its effects on man, on the player, and to attempt to see what all of the "spirit" of it may be important, may be even fundamental, and what of that “spirit” may be gone and lost from the game and the architecture we know today.
Someone on the other thread wrote a defense of Tom Fazio's architecture claiming that it really isn't low on strategy or that it's anti-strategy, and I have no doubt that's probably very true. But nevertheless, there’re marked differences between the way Behr looked at golf and architecture and strategy and spoke of them compared to the way Fazio does today (again read Michael Moore's post).
There's no question that Tom Fazio was on television the other day during the Skin's game explaining in detail the EXACT way his golf holes were designed and EXACTLY how they were to be played ideally. I believe also, as Michael said, that Tom menitoned all his holes were signature holes. What's a "signature hole" really? Does a signature hole also include a "signature strategy"? Does that strategy include Tom Fazio's "signature"? It would seem so and it sure sounds that way.
What about Behr's ideas of strategies? He's said over and over they should be the golfer's individual strategies and that it's almost fundamental that any golfer feels them to be his very own! Even if obviously the architect has arranged them, Behr felt they should still not be perceived as the architect's.
Even if the architecture of the two may not be vastly different at least the way they perceived it from the architect’s perspective and for the golfer is vastly different.
At one point Behr mentioned that golf architecture was not a representation but an interpretation. I'm not sure I understand that distinction completely---matter of fact, I'm sure I don't. But Behr went on to say, in that context, that as a painter's medium is paint, and a painter becomes the master of his medium (paint), a golf architect's medium is the earth and he must not attempt to become it's master! The earth remains the architect's medium and master (and by extension the golfer's master--albeit opponent, but only in the context of the sport of golf). And Behr apparently implies that even in the case of the architect constructing something wholly man-made that the "lineaments" of the earth and nature should remain his master or perhaps his teacher in the ideal of that construction!
The fundamental reasons Behr said things like this, is, again, because he believed that man (the golfer) would react more inspirationally, with more freedom, with less criticism, with less negativity, to something he perceived to be natural (even if it actually wasn't).
So here’s Behr’s poser (in the next post below). I realize that many may not understand it or think it relevant but it’s interesting to consider at least in a sort of fundamental way.